It's not so biased as that: the process makes some assumptions (mainly, that the image structure is relatively simple) but it is agnostic to whether it's lookin

It's not so biased as that: the process makes some assumptions (mainly, that the image structure is relatively simple) but it is agnostic to whether it's looking at a black hole or some other image (it's not like an image generation AI where they fed it in a bunch of existing images of what they thought black holes might look like). The techniques they used are used in other areas of astronomy. The criticism in this paper seems to be focused on how one of those assumptions could lead to the ring structure, not because they biased it with presupposed images, but due to the mathematics of how the techniques attempt to determine the image from the raw data. It makes some sense to me that this could happen, but I'm not really equipped to evaluate who seems to have the better points.